November 18th.—- Last week at the Grove to meet the Duc d'Aumale, who is one of the most enlightened and agreeable Princes I ever met, very simple and natural, and full of information and knowledge of all sorts.
I do not remember to have gathered anything particularly interesting from Clarendon in our various conversations, except that in the event of our consenting to join the Congress he would not be unwilling to go to it, and that he thinks he might be able to effect an arrangement. This confidence has in great measure been produced by a letter from Cowley which he showed me, containing an account of his visit to Biarritz and his communications with the Emperor. He said he had resolved not to say a word to His Majesty of Italian affairs, thinking the Emperor would abstain from talking of them to him, but as soon as they met he began to talk, and went at length into the whole subject. The upshot was that he found the Emperor in such a state of perplexity and embarrassment, and so fully conscious of the scrape into which he had got himself, that he did not know what to do or which way to turn; his object evidently is to get us to help him out of his difficulty, and Clarendon thinks that he should be able to draw him into such measures as we could support if the matter was well managed.
A day or two ago the Duke of Bedford, whom I have not seen or communicated with for a long time, called on me. He told me one curious anecdote, which he had heard from his brother. Persigny called on Lord John one day, and told him he was come in strict confidence to show him the letter which the Emperor had written to the King of Sardinia, but which he must not mention even to his own colleagues, except of course to Palmerston. Lord John promised he would not, and a day or two after he read the letter in the 'Times.' He sent for Persigny and asked for an explanation. Persigny said he could not explain it, but would write to Walewski. John Russell also wrote to Cowley, who spoke to Walewski about it. Walewski declared he could not account for it, and that it must have been sent from Turin, and he would write to that Court to complain of the indiscretion and would also speak to the Emperor. He went to the Emperor, told him what had passed, and showed him what he proposed to write to Turin, when the Emperor said: 'No, don't write at all, take no notice of the publication. The fact is, I sent the letter myself to the "Times" Correspondent.' It was Mocquard who took it to him. A most extraordinary proceeding, and showing the extreme difficulty of all diplomatic dealing between the two Governments. The Emperor is by way of being indignant with the 'Times,' and never fails to pour forth complaints and abuse of the paper to whomever he converses with. He did so, for instance, to Cobden, to whom he gave an audience at Paris. But who can tell whether this is not a pretence and a deceit, and whether he may not all the time have a secret understanding with the 'Times'? Such a supposition would seem to be inconsistent with their articles and his conduct, and the comments of the former upon the latter; but how difficult it is to form any certain judgement upon a policy so tortuous as his, and upon designs so close and councils so crooked!
[CHAPTER XIX.]
Prospects of the Government and of the Opposition—Mr. Disraeli's commanding Position—Preparation of a Reform Bill—A Congress—Death of Macaulay—The Affairs of Italy—Policy of the Emperor Napoleon—The Commercial Treaty with France—M. de Cavour resumes Office—Opening of Parliament—Negotiation of the Commercial Treaty—The Emperor a Free Trader—Perplexity of Italian Affairs—Moderation of Lord Derby—Opposition to the Commercial Treaty—The Reform Bill of 1860—Tory Opposition to Reform—Mr. Gladstone's great Budget Speech—Opposition to the Treaty and the Budget—Triumph of Mr. Gladstone—The Italian Correspondence—Democratic Opinions of Mr. Gladstone—Introduction of the Reform Bill—The Annexation of Savoy and Nice—Annexation of Tuscany to Piedmont—The D�nouement of the Plot—Complete Apathy of the Country as to Reform—Lord Derby declines to interfere—Lord John's adverse Declaration to France—Consequences of Lord John's Speech against France—Our Position in Europe—Anecdote of the Crimean War—Designs of the Emperor Napoleon in 1858—Lord Palmerston's Distrust of Napoleon III.—Lord John's Indifference to his own Reform Bill—Mr. Gladstone's Ascendency—Designs of the Emperor and Cavour—Unpopularity of the Reform Bill—Correspondence of Lord Grey and Lord John Russell—Reaction against Mr. Gladstone's Measures—Opposition to the Repeal of the Paper Duties—Coolness with France—Garibaldi's Expedition—Lord Palmerston attacks the Neapolitan Minister—The Paper Duties Bill rejected by the Lords—The Reform Bill withdrawn—Lord Palmerston adjusts the Difference between the two Houses—Mr. Gladstone supported by the Radicals—Mr. Senior's Conversations in Paris—A Letter from the Speaker—Mr. Cobden's Faith in the Emperor Napoleon—Conclusion of these Journals.
THE APPROACHING SESSION.
London, December 25th, 1859.—The Government are getting ready for the session which is near at hand, Palmerston with his usual confidence, but Granville, who is not naturally desponding, and who I dare say represents the feeling of his colleagues, is conscious of the want of that strength and security which a commanding majority alone can give, and, without thinking the danger great or imminent, anticipates the possibility of their being defeated on some vital question. The Opposition, conscious of their numerical force, but anything but united, profess the most moderate views and intentions. Derby professed at Liverpool to have no wish to turn out the Government or to come into office himself. Disraeli himself told me that he and all his party desired the Reform question to be settled quietly, and that if the Government only offered them such a Bill as they could possibly accept, they should be ready to give them every assistance in carrying it through. Since this, Walpole has made a formal communication to Granville (through Henry Lennox) of his and Henley's disposition to the above mentioned end. We are told, moreover, that a great number of the Conservative party will not only support a fair and moderate Reform Bill, but support the Government generally, not so much, however, from wishing well to the Government as from their antipathy to Disraeli and their reluctance to see him in power again. That they will join in carrying through a safe and moderate Reform Bill is no doubt true, but it is not probable that the division amongst them and the hostility to Disraeli will last long, or continue a moment after the appearance of any prospect of the return of the Conservative party to power.
Disraeli raised himself immensely last year, more, perhaps, with his opponents and the House of Commons generally than with his own party, but it is universally acknowledged that he led the House with a tact, judgement, and ability of which he was not before thought capable. While he has thus risen, no rival has sprung up to dispute his pre-eminence. Walpole and Henley are null, and it is evident that the party cannot do without Disraeli, and whenever Parliament meets he will find means of reconciling them to a necessity of which none of them can be unconscious, and I have no doubt that whenever any good opportunities for showing fight may occur the whole party will be found united under Disraeli's orders.